From an article in aig

[RickD]

Can someone please point out how this argument with (A) and (B) is a faulty argument?

It’s also easy to refute the idea that the earth is actually old. The Bible tells us that God made the earth in six days. It’s clear from context (the days are bounded by an evening and morning) that these are days in the ordinary sense—the same as our work week (see Exodus 20:8–11). And it’s clear from the genealogies that this happened thousands of years ago. Those who argue against this must either assume that (A) the Bible is wrong, or (B) the Bible does not mean what it says.

[Canuckster1127]

They're confusing two things. The context of the word "yom" in Exodus 20:8-11 doesn't prove that just as the days are literal 24 hour in Exodus, so they must be in Genesis. The appeal in Exodus can be seen as an analogy in terms of pattern. It doesn't necessarily follow that the context for the use of the word yom there dictates the use of the word yom in the passages of Genesis. The primary context of the original passage determines the interpretation of yom not a secondary analogy. The analogy holds and is valid with either rendering of the passage appealed to in Genesis.

So, with their original premise flawed, their conclusion is flawed.

"The Bible tells us that God made the earth in six days ..." The usage of the word yom in this context is not as clear as they attempt to portray. They are making a claim of interpretation and then equating their interpretation with the Scriptures themselves with no humility or willingness to consider otherwise that their interpretation could be wrong and that the Scriptures would remain true despite their faulty interpretation.

Where they give the two options and equate the Bible with their interpretive conclusion, the real choice is that:

A) Their interpretation may be wrong.
B) The Bible does not mean what they say it means in this instance.

Neither of those options negate Scripture. Sadly what their approach accomplishes often is that non-believers see their claim and appeal and then believe them that they are right and if the earth is indeed Old than the Bible and Christianity are false.

[August]

Do snakes really eat dust?

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

Those who argue against this must either assume that (A) the Bible is wrong, or (B) the Bible does not mean what it says.

[Silvertusk]

Can someone please point out how this argument with (A) and (B) is a faulty argument?

It’s also easy to refute the idea that the earth is actually old. The Bible tells us that God made the earth in six days. It’s clear from context (the days are bounded by an evening and morning) that these are days in the ordinary sense—the same as our work week (see Exodus 20:8–11). And it’s clear from the genealogies that this happened thousands of years ago. Those who argue against this must either assume that (A) the Bible is wrong, or (B) the Bible does not mean what it says.

or c) AiG are seriously nuts.

Sorry.....

[jlay]

Bart, actually the context they seem to be making has to do not with Exodus but with the morning and evening framing of a day. At least that is what they say. They do cite the Exodus verse, but this seems to be the context of what they call a work week.

[RickD]

This is exactly what I saw when reading their article:

A) Their interpretation may be wrong.
B) The Bible does not mean what they say it means in this instance.

I see people here always talking about faulty logic when making arguments. Their logic in this instance is certainly flawed. I'm not arguing that their interpretation is wrong, just that their logic is flawed.

Bart, actually the context they seem to be making has to do not with Exodus but with the morning and evening framing of a day. At least that is what they say. They do cite the Exodus verse, but this seems to be the context of what they call a work week.

Jlay, I've heard this argument before in a debate with Ham and Ross. Dr. Walter Kaiser is an expert on Old Testament studies, and he said that just because the days are bounded by morning and evening, that doesn't necessarily mean they're 24 hour days. So, If one expert says they may not be 24 hour days, then it's certainly not as clear as AIG seems to think here:

that these are days in the ordinary sense—the same as our work week

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

Those who argue against this must either assume that (A) the Bible is wrong, or (B) the Bible does not mean what it says.

Yes, this is the same kind of faulty logic.

or c) AiG are seriously nuts.

Sorry.....

I wasn't so much trying to argue against their belief in 24 hour days, but against their faulty logic in this instance.